oh i dont know about that. post election agreements that form governments that a mjority dont want seems to be the ultimate in reducing voter choice.

So if you can't udnerstand the topic you just invent new definitions for the words until it does make sense?

what exactly prevents you from answering a question with a clear answer? it doesnt matter what is asked you come back with a non-answer like this. you are an appalling debater and would last one round in primary school where the rules actually do involve staying on topic, making coherent comments and answering questions. you seem to do none of it.

You might note tho that it isnt just me. no one else answers or responds much now either because your replies are not even understandable half the time and the other half, a deflection.

what exactly prevents you from answering a question with a clear answer?

It wasn't a question at all. It was an absurd claim about coalition governments. That is what MPs are actually supposed to do. To try to equate this with a 'gentlemans agreement' to deny choice to voters is just silly.

Quote:

You might note tho that it isnt just me. no one else answers or responds much now either because your replies are not even understandable half the time and the other half, a deflection.

OK. Lets start with the basics.

Do you understand what I mean by denying choice to voters?

Do you understand the perverse incentive on the part of both voters and candidates to reduce choice to overcome problems with OPV?

And don't accuse me of deflecting then give a non-answer about how all systems have their problems.

I know what the english words mean normally. what YOU think they mean, I have no idea. You might try actual examples to detail what you mean because in one thread you said coalitions denied voters a choice and in another said that single parties denied choice. so imagine my (and everyone elese) confusion!

I was referring to agreements not to compete against each other in electorates. This has obviously been formalised in the QLD merger. There is now one less major political party in QLD as a result. That means less choice for voters, and fewer candidates on the ballot paper. It artifically concentrates political power in fewer institutions.

I was referring to agreements not to compete against each other in electorates. This has obviously been formalised in the QLD merger. There is now one less major political party in QLD as a result. That means less choice for voters, and fewer candidates on the ballot paper. It artifically concentrates political power in fewer institutions.

prior to this merger the libs and nats normally did not run against each other anyhow. exactly how does that reduce voter choice when it wasnt there before?

anyone and everyone can stand for election. no one is denyong any a choice. it is not up to any party to offer more choices. thats up to the people. if they dont put up more candidates then the chocie they ahve is the choice they want (or deserve).

I was referring to agreements not to compete against each other in electorates. This has obviously been formalised in the QLD merger. There is now one less major political party in QLD as a result. That means less choice for voters, and fewer candidates on the ballot paper. It artifically concentrates political power in fewer institutions.

prior to this merger the libs and nats normally did not run against each other anyhow. exactly how does that reduce voter choice when it wasnt there before?

That is because prior to the merger they still had OPV. The Libs and Nats ran against each other far less once OPV started in the states it was used in. Thus you prove my point - it was not he merger itself that reduced choice, it was the introduction of OPV. The merger was just a delayed fromalisation of the inevitable.

Quote:

anyone and everyone can stand for election. no one is denyong any a choice. it is not up to any party to offer more choices. thats up to the people.

So you are denying that there is a perverse incentive to reduce choice under OPV?

Quote:

if they dont put up more candidates then the chocie they ahve is the choice they want (or deserve).

Blaming the victim is not a solution. There is a real problem, whether you can acknowledge it or not.

I was referring to agreements not to compete against each other in electorates. This has obviously been formalised in the QLD merger. There is now one less major political party in QLD as a result. That means less choice for voters, and fewer candidates on the ballot paper. It artifically concentrates political power in fewer institutions.

prior to this merger the libs and nats normally did not run against each other anyhow. exactly how does that reduce voter choice when it wasnt there before?

That is because prior to the merger they still had OPV. The Libs and Nats ran against each other far less once OPV started in the states it was used in. Thus you prove my point - it was not he merger itself that reduced choice, it was the introduction of OPV. The merger was just a delayed fromalisation of the inevitable.

Quote:

anyone and everyone can stand for election. no one is denyong any a choice. it is not up to any party to offer more choices. thats up to the people.

So you are denying that there is a perverse incentive to reduce choice under OPV?

Quote:

if they dont put up more candidates then the chocie they ahve is the choice they want (or deserve).

Blaming the victim is not a solution. There is a real problem, whether you can acknowledge it or not.

its not a problem at all! no one is prevented from standing for election. you can only 'choose' between candidates willing to actually stand. NO ONE IS DENIED CHOICE. it is not up to the parties to provide options. the entire point of standing for election is to WIN. you dont do that by saying 'lets put up 3 candidates so everyone has a nice range of options that cannot possibly succeed'.

I dont see your point. choice of candidates is the responsibility of the voting public to provide. dont liek the choices? stand yourself or start a party you like.

I'd love to be able to compare some of Liberal policy against Labor and post in the affirmative for them IF ONLY I knew what they were.Sorry 3 word slogans are not policy, & everytime I raise this point I'm told they don't need them yet.How are we supposed to have intelligent debate when one side isn't playing?

it is the new way oppositions act now as trialled successfuly by Rudd who had precisely ONE policy prior to the election campaign - if you call hating WorkChoices an actual policy when it really isnt.

You cant complain if now everyone does the same thing.

I notice you ignore the 1 policy released and my critique of it and instead resort to the well worn track of they did it so we are able to.How does that promote change or advance debate, why if the liberals are just going to do as Labor does would we waste funds on elections?Replacing 1 idiot for another again.

its not a problem at all! no one is prevented from standing for election. you can only 'choose' between candidates willing to actually stand. NO ONE IS DENIED CHOICE.

Longy you are confusing the right to run with choice. Voters only get the choice if the candidates actually run. If flaws in the electoral system create a perverse incentive for some candidates to withdraw, and they choose not to run because of that, voters are denied choice. Just because it is not written into law that voters are denied choice does not mean it doesn't happen.

Quote:

it is not up to the parties to provide options

Again you are confused Longy. My criticism is not of the parties. They are merely responding to the situation. My criticism is of the compulsory optional preferential voting system. It is up to the system to provide a level playing field that does not impose such perverse incentives. If you check the OP again you will see that I painted the coalition as victims of the system.

Quote:

the entire point of standing for election is to WIN. you dont do that by saying 'lets put up 3 candidates so everyone has a nice range of options that cannot possibly succeed'.

You are assuming that the three parties are acting in collusion. The system should be encouraging them to compete, not avoid competition.

Quote:

I dont see your point. choice of candidates is the responsibility of the voting public to provide. dont liek the choices? stand yourself or start a party you like.

Again Longy, you are looking for someone to blame or take responsibility. My point is that the perverse incentive is real. Do you understand that it exists? Fielding a candidate takes the actions of many people. It is not possible (for good reason) for one person to unilaterally run for office. Once you create a situation that forces the cooperation of many people, you also need to acknowledge the very real impacts that such perverse incentives will have on the outcome. You are suggesting that people accept a bad situation by suggesting they have a rememdy, but the remedy you put forward may actually make the situation worse for them.

The point of running for office is not to win, but to influence government policy. It is not about the one person on the ballot, but about the efforts of a large group of people. OPV severly restricts the avenues people have for influencing policy, because it creates a situation where their efforts will backfire and have the opposite effect to what they want. You suggest that this is somehow OK because people have the right to go ahead and do so, while pretending the potential to have the opposite effect, and the inevitable impact this has one people's actions is not a problem. You need to stop approaching the problem as if the only thing that matters is that the coalition wins.

its not a problem at all! no one is prevented from standing for election. you can only 'choose' between candidates willing to actually stand. NO ONE IS DENIED CHOICE.

Longy you are confusing the right to run with choice. Voters only get the choice if the candidates actually run. If flaws in the electoral system create a perverse incentive for some candidates to withdraw, and they choose not to run because of that, voters are denied choice. Just because it is not written into law that voters are denied choice does not mean it doesn't happen.

Quote:

it is not up to the parties to provide options

Again you are confused Longy. My criticism is not of the parties. They are merely responding to the situation. My criticism is of the compulsory optional preferential voting system. It is up to the system to provide a level playing field that does not impose such perverse incentives. If you check the OP again you will see that I painted the coalition as victims of the system.

Quote:

the entire point of standing for election is to WIN. you dont do that by saying 'lets put up 3 candidates so everyone has a nice range of options that cannot possibly succeed'.

You are assuming that the three parties are acting in collusion. The system should be encouraging them to compete, not avoid competition.

Quote:

I dont see your point. choice of candidates is the responsibility of the voting public to provide. dont liek the choices? stand yourself or start a party you like.

Again Longy, you are looking for someone to blame or take responsibility. My point is that the perverse incentive is real. Do you understand that it exists? Fielding a candidate takes the actions of many people. It is not possible (for good reason) for one person to unilaterally run for office. Once you create a situation that forces the cooperation of many people, you also need to acknowledge the very real impacts that such perverse incentives will have on the outcome. You are suggesting that people accept a bad situation by suggesting they have a rememdy, but the remedy you put forward may actually make the situation worse for them.

The point of running for office is not to win, but to influence government policy. It is not about the one person on the ballot, but about the efforts of a large group of people. OPV severly restricts the avenues people have for influencing policy, because it creates a situation where their efforts will backfire and have the opposite effect to what they want. You suggest that this is somehow OK because people have the right to go ahead and do so, while pretending the potential to have the opposite effect, and the inevitable impact this has one people's actions is not a problem. You need to stop approaching the problem as if the only thing that matters is that the coalition wins.

that is just plain silly. Ridiculous, even. Those that influence policy are those that WIN not those that compete. I dont know what you are after. Is it seats where there and 258 candidates so that the winner is the first one to 5%? Standing for parliament is a struggle. it take sa lot of effort and frankly, that is how it SHOULD be. it should be a battle for the strong to compete in.

I repeat that I dont see your point. There wil be weaknesses in every system. OPV seems the best of them all allowing people to OPTIONALLY (call it choice!) preference candidates or not.

You seem to be looking for some electoral nirvana. Thats as likely as any other nirvana. NOT.

that is just plain silly. Ridiculous, even. Those that influence policy are those that WIN not those that compete.

Wrong. You are voersimplifying the situation to the point of absurdity. You pretend it is all about one person, rather than the thousands of people that support him. Even if only some of those people involved are influenced by the perverse incentive to withdraw, it will have a negative outcome for voter choice and will artifically alter the long term democratic outcome. That is, the long term result will be influenced by the flaws in the system, not just by the will of the people.

Quote:

I dont know what you are after. Is it seats where there and 258 candidates so that the winner is the first one to 5%?

Is is your rpeferred system that allows minority victories, not mine.

I am after the outcome reflecting the will of the majority rather than a flaw in the system. Perhaps your comprehension failure has something to do with your view that these flaws are confined to 'three horse races'. This is not true. Many contests come down to two leading candidates, neither of which would gain an absolute majority in a fair and open contest. In these situations, the presence of a minor or insignificant candidate is likely to alter the election outcome in a way that the supporters of the candidate oppose. This would mean that either the outcome reflects the will of the minority over the will of the majority, or the candidate (and/or his supporters) withdraws in order to prevent an outcome that is the opposite of what he wants, thus reducing voter choice. The second option reduces the short term problem, but introduces even more insidious long term problems, by reducing competition.

Quote:

Standing for parliament is a struggle. it take sa lot of effort and frankly, that is how it SHOULD be.

I am not complaining about the effort, I am complaining about the institutionalisation of a disincentive to invest that effort.

Quote:

I repeat that I dont see your point. There wil be weaknesses in every system.

When you say this it is hard to see why you don't understand. Is it because you aknowledge the flaw but see it as hopeless because of the (wave arms vaguely in the air) 'other' problems?

Quote:

OPV seems the best of them all allowing people to OPTIONALLY (call it choice!) preference candidates or not. You really should clarify this, because I feel like I am banging my head on a brick wall repeatedly explaining the problem to you that you already understand, but refuse to acknowledge out of some kind of idiotic debating strategy.

It is actually compulsory optional preferential voting. This is worse than both truly optional preferentuial voting and compulsory preferential voting. The reason is that it creates elections in which one candidate relies more heavily on compulsory votes and his opponent must rely more heavily on optional votes. It increases the incentive for candidatees to withdraw and reduce voter choice and political competition - hence the informal and then formal merger of the LNP, something which has never happened under the old system, and a black mark on our democracy.

Quote:

You seem to be looking for some electoral nirvana. Thats as likely as any other nirvana. NOT.

How about we start with you actually acknowledging the problem, instead of refusing to debate like an adult in case the debate gets into specifics of the problems. The closer we come to actually discussing the problem, the more you resort to complaining about not understanding it and making vague criticisms of the alternatives.

Longy you appear to be claiming to not understand the problem and know all the answers at the same time. Which is it? Are you just claiming not to understand so you can insist I am wrong without having to provide a rational argument in support?